On June 11, 2020, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court reversed and remanded a decision by the trial court denying an offender under age 21 the opportunity to file a successive postconviction petition based on evolving pertinent law and science.
On June 16, 2020, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court found that a defendant had provided a gist of a constitutional claim for purposes of filing a postconviction petition when a trial court, without the assistance of an interpreter, pronounced him guilty.
On May 15, 2020, the Second District of the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Stephenson County Circuit Court that the defendant resisted or obstructed a peace officer’s authorized acts.
On May 12, 2020, the Third District of the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the Peoria County Circuit Court by holding that a defendant’s postconviction petition cannot be dismissed where newly discovered evidence shows that an eyewitness’s self-interested testimony may have materially affected the outcome of the trial.
At a trial convicting the defendant of residential burglary, the state presented a fingerprint expert’s testimony on a partial fingerprint obtained at the scene that matched the defendant’s.
A state trooper convicted of first-degree murder of his girlfriend at a middle-school graduation party argued on appeal that the circuit court denied him a fair trial by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter.
On Jan. 30, 2020, the Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed a lower court’s ruling denying a defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty but mentally ill.
In 2016, the Illinois Supreme Court held that unconstitutionally obtained gun convictions could be used for charging and enhancement purposes unless the defendant vacated the conviction. Two years later, the court admitted it got it wrong.
Under current law, prosecution for criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault, or aggravated criminal sexual abuse must be commenced within 10 years of the commission of the offense if the victim reported the offense within three years of the commission.
The Illinois General Assembly amended the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 to alter the procedures for effecting a warrant of arrest in certain circumstances.
In 2008, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the conviction of the plaintiff, Alan Beaman, of the murder of his ex-girlfriend because the state violated his constitutional right to due process under Brady v. Maryland when it failed to disclose material and exculpatory information about a viable alternative suspect.
On Dec. 14, 2018, after a jury trial, the defendant was convicted for the unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. It was also alleged that the defendant was within 1,000 feet of a school at the time of the offense.
On Dec. 28, 2018, after a jury trial, the defendant was convicted for the unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon. In addition, the defendant was acquitted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.
On Dec. 28, 2018, after a jury trial, the defendant was convicted for a Class 2 felony for delivery of a controlled substance and ordered to pay $1,549 in fines, fees, and costs.
Recent decisions in the U.S. and Illinois Supreme Courts have complicated the landscape for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims brought in Illinois.
The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 is amended by changing section 115-21 ("Informant Testimony") as follows. Courts may permit the prosecution to disclose its intent to introduce the testimony of an informant with less notice than the 30-day notice required under subsections (c) and (d) of this section, if the court finds that the informant was not known prior to the 30-day notice period.
The defendant pled guilty to aggravated unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle, unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and four counts of unlawful use of a credit card. The defendant's postplea proceedings in circuit court were completed more than a year before Rule 604(d) was amended. Thus, amended Rule 604(d) did not apply then to the defendant's case.
Following a bench trial, the defendant was convicted of battery and other offenses related to a DUI stop. A squad-car video was presented as evidence, but the judge had to view it in chambers because the court did not have video capabilities in the courtroom.
On Sept. 28, 2018, the First District Appellate Court of Illinois held that a defendant raising a freestanding actual innocence challenge after previously entering a guilty plea must present a truly persuasive demonstration of innocence in the form of compelling evidence.
Nervousness, a criminal history, and other odd behavior are not enough to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity during a traffic stop, according to the fourth district.
On Aug. 6, 2018, the Fourth District Appellate Court of Illinois held that the one-act, one-crime doctrine is not violated when each count requires a different act.
